Diego Alejandro Tejada Arango

@clizbe `Eventually` is fine for now; depending on how many people start joining the Team to develop more formulation/constraints, then we can increase the priority

The aim of this PR is to fix to ensure that resolution is the one that is expected. Check the current state in the main branch and see if it...

Hi @Alireza64z, You need to change your solver parameter for the time limit (e.g., `timelimit` is the name for Gurobi, and `time_limit` is the name in HiGHS). So, you need...

@jkiviluo @nhniina will review the timeline for version 0.9. Depending on this timeline, we can continue this issue in two ways: 1. Wait for 0.9, and in the meantime, add...

Hi @manuelma, thanks for your comments. Actually, we agreed with @DillonJ that we need to increase the cases to benchmark to make it more useful. There is an issue with...

> > Hi @manuelma, thanks for your comments. Actually, we agreed with @DillonJ that we need to increase the cases to benchmark to make it more useful. There is an...

Remaining tasks: - [x] Update the examples to the new format with the new parameters - [x] Run the benchmark in a large test case - [x] Performance checks (especially...

Update on the benchmarking using the following set-up: ``` # basic run url_in_basic, url_out_basic = setup(number_of_weeks=8, n_count=100, add_meshed_network=true, add_investment=false, add_rolling=false) # with investment url_in_invest, url_out_invest = setup(number_of_weeks=4, n_count=10, add_investment=true, add_rolling=false)...

@manuelma, according to the previous comments, we finally have this PR finished. The branch has been benchmarked with and without calculating the new parameters. There is no significant impact on...

@g-moralesespana, We might want to use some of the findings we got from Thomas' research. Any thoughts?